Art and Morality
- Thread starter IdleRich
- Start date
crackerjack
Well-known member
The explanations are just shocking aren't they. No straw unclutched.
i realise these things are just fun way to generate web traffic, but you'd think the beating brain of the American right could come up with better than this.
Vim could*
*although he'd have to braoden his preferred definition of right-wing as neoliberal econmics to encompass the traditional definition, which includes socially reactionary racist bastards.
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
They've included Team America: World Police. Irony is, indeed, dead.
Edit: they've also got TLOTR, calling Tolkien "deeply conservative". Well yeeeah, kinda - but he was also an eco-cultist decades ahead of his time and a mystically-inclined Catholic, and occupied a bizarre space somewhere between unreconstructed royalist and anarcho-collectivist as far as his political leanings went. If he didn't find much good to say about America when he was alive I sincerely doubt he'd have cheered on Bush Jnr. and co.
Oh, and The Patriot is in their also-ran list. Yay for Anglo-Nazis and appropriately cooperative ni-, I mean Afro-Americans.
Edit: they've also got TLOTR, calling Tolkien "deeply conservative". Well yeeeah, kinda - but he was also an eco-cultist decades ahead of his time and a mystically-inclined Catholic, and occupied a bizarre space somewhere between unreconstructed royalist and anarcho-collectivist as far as his political leanings went. If he didn't find much good to say about America when he was alive I sincerely doubt he'd have cheered on Bush Jnr. and co.
Oh, and The Patriot is in their also-ran list. Yay for Anglo-Nazis and appropriately cooperative ni-, I mean Afro-Americans.
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I have, though I'm not convinced they really exist. I don't think Parker and Stone really have much in the way of a consistent political platform, they just love offending people and taking the piss out of anything and everything (which is no bad thing, of course). As for their fans, I dunno if hating liberals automatically makes you a republican - if you're sufficiently nihilistic and childish, surely it's possible to hate all politicians and all politics?
The Ghostbusters thing is a bit of a "WTF?".
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
Well, the term is obviously a bit of fun. According to that an article in reason linked on the wikipedia page, they're libertarians:
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Is there anything worse than when people expect all art to amount to morality plays?
crackerjack
Well-known member
I certainly thought TA:WP was coming from the right. They may have satirised gung ho America along with liberal Hollywood, but the former was affectionate, the latter vitriolic.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
I don't know, none of the law suits have been credible at all. I usually side with the allegations when it comes to sexual abuse but this disorder Jackson has is apparently well-known and not too uncommon.
He obviously has problems, either way. His behavior is wildly inappropriate, so even if it's not overtly abusive, it's on the borderline.
(An infant male has about as much testosterone in his system as a grown man does, fun fact.)
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
When I see Jacko on TV these days he just looks like the saddest man in the world. He really comes across as this guy who just wanted to entertain people and make them happy and can't work out why there are people calling him a freak and calling for his blood. Though of course there is the possibility he's just trying to be media-savvy and get some sympathy - obviously not savvy enough to stop going to bed with 10-year-old boys, all the same.
scottdisco
rip this joint please
Parker is a registered Libertarian?!
how i dislike the lot from MA.
how i dislike the lot from MA.
craner
Beast of Burden
That South Park Rebulicans book is a bit shit, to be fair, though its auther is a big Ian Penman and Paul Morely fan, and conversed with Penman when he was writing the great pawboy blog. Penman posted his email on the blog. Will try and find the post later on, anyway...
The idea that a Conservative film = a shit or evil film is obviously stupid.
I think Fulci made some great films that could be considered very conservative: for example, Lizard in a Woman's Skin.
Ghostbusters is my favorite film of all time, but I don't consider it conservative, particularly. Thinking about it, I suppose there's an anti-public sector, pro-private slant to the plot, but it was made by the Saturday Night Live crew, for goodness sake (somebody's coming!)...
The idea that a Conservative film = a shit or evil film is obviously stupid.
I think Fulci made some great films that could be considered very conservative: for example, Lizard in a Woman's Skin.
Ghostbusters is my favorite film of all time, but I don't consider it conservative, particularly. Thinking about it, I suppose there's an anti-public sector, pro-private slant to the plot, but it was made by the Saturday Night Live crew, for goodness sake (somebody's coming!)...
craner
Beast of Burden
Sorry, South Park Conservatives.
Really not a great book.
If anyone can find the Penman link I'll, uh, be happy.
Really not a great book.
If anyone can find the Penman link I'll, uh, be happy.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Could well be mine too. I mean, I loved it to bits when I was what, 7? first time I saw it - but to be honest I probably love it more now.
craner
Beast of Burden
Well, you must be my age: I saw it at the cinema 3 times aged 7 or 8 (one of those my birthday party, at age 7 or, um, 8) But I must have watched it about 50 times since then. It's the best NY movie. The best Jewish comedy. The best Harold Ramis script. The best Bill Murray movie. The best Dan Akroyd movie. The best Sigoureny Weaver movie. Best Rick Moranis movie. Need I go on?
Agent
dgaf ngaf cgaf
the ones that confuse me are Gattacca and Brazil, which seem like satires directed against conservative-type ideologies, and both seem a little to 'arty' for the conservative crowd, i don't know.
Ghostbusters is one of the best. i love the soundtrack - the creepy theremin music at the beginning, in the library, has an overpowering effect on me. But beyond the smarmy EPA guy i don't see much here for the conservatives to hang their hats on. it seems like it's about these heroic stoners who go around fighting ghosts... but to each his own.
Ghostbusters is one of the best. i love the soundtrack - the creepy theremin music at the beginning, in the library, has an overpowering effect on me. But beyond the smarmy EPA guy i don't see much here for the conservatives to hang their hats on. it seems like it's about these heroic stoners who go around fighting ghosts... but to each his own.
Yeah, I always found the villain in Ghostbusters being an EPA guy odd, but attributed it more to an apolitical "geez just lighten up will you?" party-animal/amoral attitude than to conservative one. Kinda like how Vice had been this decade, which in the end, could be argued as being part of the problem. :slanted:
Fuck it though, Ghostbusters was still the greatest ever.
Fuck it though, Ghostbusters was still the greatest ever.
Agent
dgaf ngaf cgaf
exactly, i couldn't agree more. i mean, if it was really conservative it would've been all pro-Reagan propaganda right?
we need a "Ghostbusters is the shit" thread
Message
It strikes me that the better the art, the less easy it is to see a clear message in it. What is "the message", for example, of Cezanne's landscapes? And maybe there is a dialectical turn around lurking here somewhere. [rummages in sack, discarding kittens, pieces of junk, spare parts for time machines, bizarre anatomical skeletons] Ah yes. Would it be possible to say that artworks which work to propound a message (thus treating their audiences as passive objects to be programmed) are morally objectionable even though they may be felt to be politically "correct" in other ways?
I think there has to be a difference between politics and morality.
I move the the morality of art is more to do with the position it adopts with respect to its audience, then with its message. Personally, what I'm really against is the model of the didactic dictator, but that's another matter.
It strikes me that the better the art, the less easy it is to see a clear message in it. What is "the message", for example, of Cezanne's landscapes? And maybe there is a dialectical turn around lurking here somewhere. [rummages in sack, discarding kittens, pieces of junk, spare parts for time machines, bizarre anatomical skeletons] Ah yes. Would it be possible to say that artworks which work to propound a message (thus treating their audiences as passive objects to be programmed) are morally objectionable even though they may be felt to be politically "correct" in other ways?
I think there has to be a difference between politics and morality.
I move the the morality of art is more to do with the position it adopts with respect to its audience, then with its message. Personally, what I'm really against is the model of the didactic dictator, but that's another matter.